the importance of feedback
You, ma’am are a scoffer who delights in mocking faith and the faithful, not an intellectual who is not the least bit interested in changing minds or learning.
One look at your blog should prove to anyone that you should not be taken seriously.
Plus, you consistently endorse the words of vile haters. That diminishes you and places you forever beyond the pale of civil discourse.
You really don’t deserve the courtesy of either replies or engagement of any sort.
(The Isaiah 53:5 Project on Quiner’s Diner)
If I’m honest, I’m not getting much positive feedback these days for my blogging efforts. Not that I ever got positive feedback, as such, more that I’m getting a considerable level of negative feedback, from a fair cross-section of fellow bloggers.
My first instinct is write it all off as the problem of the various people giving negative feedback. But some part of me realises that this would be the response of an arrogant person engaging in discussions solely to hear their own voice.
So, I’ve given the feedback due consideration and I’m going to attempt the following changes in my blogging life:
- no mocking people for their views
- be more open to seeing things from other points of view, instead of approaching every issue with the assumption that my initial instincts are correct
- post and comment less frequently but in chunks of time where I know I can give things my full attention, rather than rattling off responses on my phone while doing other things
- no posting responses while I’m angry
I’m posting this information to get it clear in my head but also so that it is here to remind me in the future (when I inevitably get blogging tunnel vision) that not adhering to these principles does nothing to further my arguments for issues that are important to me, or discussions that I think are useful for humans generally.
Thank you to everyone who’s given me feedback.
Just for the record, Violetwisp, I DO take you seriously and have great respect for your opinion and commentary.
I think many of us are guilty of having an emotional reaction when we’d be better off having an intellectual one; I certainly need reminders about that, as well. (since I consider myself a work in progress – and not as intellectual as some – I need a wall hanging or something. .. 🙂 )
It’s the way of humans, I think. There’s a lot in that saying, “Cooler heads will prevail”. I need one of those, as well.
LikeLike
Thanks Carmen, and thanks for giving your opinion on that other post. My problem is I do enjoy a heated exchange dripping with sarcasm. But I can see its limitations … 🙂
I did chuckle at the accusation of not being intellectual, as if either I or James fit in that category anyway. I find simple exchanges of thoughts and experiences, with reference to research if necessary, to be much more interesting.
LikeLike
who is not the least bit interested in changing minds or learning.
B’wahahahahaha! That’s coming from James!?! Hilarious!!!
LikeLike
I’m committed to not mocking, so I can’t comment. 🙂 He does some interesting posts and allows for discussion, and is usually quite polite. I think the refugee issue is a flashpoint for most Christians of that political persuasion, there’s a lot to process.
LikeLike
He does not allow for discussion. He’s just like Wally and Colourstorm and Insanitybytes, although she’s not as bad as the others. Discussion terrifies him.
LikeLike
When you think about it, though, you can see why discussion terrifies ANY of them. . . and I’m sure it literally does terrify them. (hell is a real possibility, remember)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
this from Richard…? i mean James, ‘grain of salt’ “I mock or block anyone I don’t want to hear from or don’t agree with”? What a D**k (sorry)
really, why would you take to heart much of what he says? it’s a technique people use to offend people so that they will just go away and with you absence, remove the responsibility they have to hear a different opinion that their own. it’s childish and below ‘intelligently designed’ conversation. We should start referring to him and ‘Rick James’.
“he’s such a super freak, super freak, he’s super freaky… Yow!”
In my opinion… he hasn’t any room to talk about mocking, or minimizing, or not listening or considering the opinions of others in order to learn and grow. You be you and do what you do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, but learning and growth both indicate opening the door to change. Since the currently held belief system is the only one that will allow for the “saved” situation, growing and learning are both very bad. Oh well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
very bad indeed… when you have all the answers and they are eternally unchanging, then being presented with contradictions, inconsistencies and flat out proof that what you have been taught, believe and in turn teach others is utter B.S. and just not true in any conventional or non-fairy tale way… well we certainly can’t have any of THAT to confuse the Faithful, now can we Hmm?
thus the mocking, the arrogance, the aggression and personal insults to drive the ‘offending party’ out of the Echo Chamber of Light and Life in Christ Jesus!! Ahhh… Safe and Secure in our continuing delusion. There is a God after all. (tongue firmly implanted in cheek) -KIA
LikeLike
“In my opinion… he hasn’t any room to talk about mocking, or minimizing, or not listening or considering the opinions of others in order to learn and grow.”
Fair enough, I’ve not had much interaction with him. But I didn’t come to this conclusion based on his comment alone, he’s simply the most recent in a long line of people bringing up different things that I was systematically shrugging off.
“You be you and do what you do.”
Oh, you really don’t want to see that. 😀
LikeLike
“Oh, you really don’t want to see that”
you wicked girl
LikeLike
KIA, I really should not have called you fuckwitted. I am sorry for it. There we go, I got to the apology eventually.
But I don’t like your comment here about James any more than I liked that about me. My experience is very different from yours, and it seemed to me that you were not open to seeing that experience as worthwhile; you wanted pats on the back for what seems the obvious conclusion, that we are men or women as our genes make us.
If you have come out of fundamentalist religion recently- I have not read the Mike and Brandy blog- you seem to have moved from one definite, surely everyone will agree with this, point of view- Jesus is my saviour- to another- God does not exist; and as the majority here are against James, your line against him seems again to me to be coming out with the opinion which everyone will agree with.
I see I am about three weeks older than you are. It is a big milestone for us next year. I want to hear your opinions, not those you feel will be accepted. I want evidence that you might be open to my experience: if not, while raging at you will do no good, I can’t see any other way of engaging that might do any good either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apology accepted. Thx have a great day
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am very sickies right now but my part of the olive branch you’ve offered is that I promise not to engage you on that particular subject until I’ve had a chance to examine and research more. Possibly not at all. Peace reigns. Pax romanum
LikeLike
Could I suggest then-
if anyone says something like, “We are what our genetics make us”, you say
“Well, I’m not sure, actually. Why should you doubt their experience of their own lives?” Open minds are always a good start.
LikeLike
I don’t block people I disagree with Mike, I block juvenile haters, like you.
This comment is proof that you should just need ignored.
LikeLike
You block, ban, delete, censor, alter and edit anyone who challenges your cartoon reality.
LikeLike
Not so John. I ban scoffers who only comment to waste my time and rude children like Ark and KIA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you banned me for…?
LikeLike
Same conversations over and over John. You were one of the first people to comment on my blog. We have discussed faith at length, and I believe I have held my own. But, the same exact comments get old.
You also have a bad habit of calling me an idiot (and worse) behind my back. Why should I waste a bunch of my time with someone who obviously has no respect for me or my faith?
As I do with KIA and Ark. I don’t block dissent, I block childish behavior. You condone hateful idiots, I can’t take you seriously.
LikeLike
And does that laughable excuse help you sleep at night?
Just admit it… You want only an echo-chamber.
LikeLike
Nope. I just don’t want to waste time on haters. If an echo chamber is the result, so be it.
LikeLike
So now you’re labeling all people who critique your beliefs “haters”?
I see….
LikeLike
Not what I’m saying at all John, you know better.
LikeLike
No, that’s exactly what you said.
LikeLike
Nope. KIA, Ark, and those like them are childish haters. I ban people like them and people (like you) who encourage them.
Also, I have never been particularly moved by any of your arguments. Jesus commanded his followers to be communists, Jesus would be taken more seriously if he mentioned Tupperware, God is maximally evil, Heaven is hotter than Hell…yawn.
You take yourself much more seriously than an objective assessment of the facts justifies John.
No more inspired than any Internet atheist I have ever communicated with, just a bigger ego.
LikeLike
You left out “Hater”… You need that label, remember, to justify your cowardliness.
LikeLike
Whatever John. I’ve wasted enough of my time and Violet’s space.
LikeLike
John, when the world is looked at through the eyes of faith then those who question the divine nature of the Holy Book are inevitably seen to be evil scoffers. It is the logical outcome of a worldview that says anything that contradicts the Bible is anti God so must be evil.
The reality is that in denouncing those who question their beliefs they often display the ugly behaviour they claim to see in others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice adult response brother james. Because blocking someone says volumes as to your openess. Have a great day
LikeLike
Blocking you says I have no tolerance for rude mockers Mike.
By your actions, you have proved that you are not worth my time and should be ignored. Entertaining children who seem to live to make fun of Christians is simply not worth the effort.
If you want to be taken seriously, grow up.
James
LikeLike
What defines growing up though? Not challenging your beliefs? Accepting them as valid when certainly, Mike has just come out of that deeply disturbing loop. Religion is not written in tablets of stone, even if Judaism might have originally (allegedly) been so. And each sect of Christianity proves that there is no agreement amongst those who profess Christianity. So, is it unreasonable for others to question often rigid and discriminatory beliefs?
LikeLike
So coming out of this loop gives people an excuse to be rude and insulting?
LikeLike
I think, if you read blog posts by people who initially had doubts and then, have finally rejected Christianity, (I don’t know if you do) you will find it is a very traumatic experience for them. Whether they have been heavily indoctrinated from childhood, either from family or school or both, or gained a religious degree/qualification, or became church workers or became ministers, the commonality is a huge sense of betrayal, isolation and shock. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to at least understand where they are coming from. I’ve not encountered Mike being rude and insulting, but I guess he and I have different conversations. Horses for courses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for joining the discussion here James. I don’t understand your attitude to any of the people here. If it was Ark, shouting and calling you names, I would take your point but John, Peter and Mike are all serious about having discussions and rarely, if ever, resort to name calling.
John is persistent in his points, but they are always logically sound and politely presented. From what I’ve seen of Peter’s comments, he is a gentle peace maker, trying to find common ground between non-believers and believers, while dealing with the frustrations he has with his recent beliefs. KIA/Mike can say some abrupt and inconsiderate things, but again, he always seems to be looking for answers and is usually polite.
I would recommend you don’t take what people say ‘behind your back’ seriously. It’s a public forum and nobody believes anything is private. I don’t mind what anyone thinks about me personally, but I do hope they will be happy to engage in conversations about ideas – isn’t that what this is about? The exchange of information and ideas?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Violet,
From Ark first thing this morning “hey dipshit…”
This happens every day so he is a special case and his actions are childish and cannot be defenfed.
Didn’t expect us to see eye to eye on the rest of the people but my opinion is based on interactions I have had with them on various blogs since I started doing this.
In all honesty though. If I truly cared what people thought about me I would have stopped when the hopes I kill myself and death threats started. Now, instead of giving up, I block and ignore rude and hateful dissenters.
Ultimately, my blog, my rules, right? If I want to ban and/or block I can.
James
LikeLike
Here’s your solution James… Set your blog to Private. You don’t appreciate discussion, you have no inclination whatsoever to learn anything new, and you desire only a self-confirming echo-chamber.
So, quit pretending you host a Public blog, and set it to private.
No more “haters,” right?
LikeLike
So I should entertain every commenter, regardless of how rude they are, on their terms, or shut up?
Do all bloggers have this same rule or just us Christians?
LikeLike
Don’t take it to extremes, James. You know perfectly well what i’m talking about.
But seriously, why even pretend you have a public blog that welcomes open discussion when that is an absolute lie?
Drop the charade, James. Switch to a Private setting, and enjoy yourself with warm-fuzzy self-confirming baths of what it is you only want to hear. There’s no shame in that. There is shame (and disgrace) in pretending you’re hosting something you’re not.
LikeLike
Again. Entertain you endlessly or go private?
LikeLike
Again, quit the charade of saying you’re open to discussion when that is a lie.
LikeLike
I am open to discussion John just not a big fan of wasting my time with people who genuinely believe Jesus would have had a greater impact if He talked about Tupperware.
LikeLike
Or presented an accurate cosmogony, as opposed to believing, as Jesus did, that the earth was flat.
LikeLike
John,
Do you think I believe that Jesus or the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat?
Are you familiar with the apologetic arguments against the assertion that the Bible and Jesus teach that the Earth is flat?
If you are honest you will answer no to the first question and yes to the second, right?
That makes me wonder why you constantly bring stuff like that up on Christian blogs. Are you truly looking for some profound argument you’ve never heard before or are you simply out to waste time?
You can call me ignoring you an unwillingness to debate on my part if you want. I call it avoiding a mind-numbing exercise in futility.
Now, good day.
James
LikeLike
I thought you didn’t want to discuss anything, James?
”Apologetic arguments against the assertion that the Bible and Jesus teach that the Earth is flat”
LOL! Apologetics = hastily arranged excuses for those tremendously embarrassing parts of the bible.
The word used in one section regarding the earth is “circle.” Circle, James, doesn’t mean sphere, or ball, and no amount of quick-footed human-invented excuses will alter that fact.
So yes, the bible teaches the earth is flat, and as Jesus said nothing to the contrary, then we must assume he, too, believed the earth was flat.
So you can focus all you like on the purposely humorous parts of my argument, James, while the intellectually honest and capable of us will acknowledge exactly what is in question here: why didn’t Jesus (the supposed creator of the Universe) say anything new, original, or even marginally useful?
Like, for example, telling his disciples that the earth was not, in fact, flat like everyone believed, but rather a sphere in a vast cosmos. Like, for example, telling people that those prone to epileptic fits were not, in fact, possessed by demons as everyone believed, but rather had a physiological ailment and required care, not being stoned to death.
But of course, you don’t have the intellectual courage to even approach this, do you, James. No, you want to talk about Tupperware, because talking about Tupperware protects your cartoon reality.
LikeLike
John,
I don’t really want to discuss anything but I’m bored so…
The Bible does not teach the Earth is flat and I can make that case but, what would be the point since you dismiss apologetics as hastily arranged excuses?
Again, I ask. Why do you ask questions when you know you will discount whatever is said as soon as you hear it? Who is learning what from these exchanges?
LikeLike
You’re going to try and argue a “circle” is a “sphere”? Good luck with that.
So, when you’re free, you can also address the fact that Jesus didn’t present an accurate cosmogony, or talk about bacteria and the nature of disease, water purification, asthma, epilepsy, malaria, lightning and thunder, atoms, prenatal care, plate tectonics (did he believe earthquakes were Yhwh’s doing?), evolution, a world map… and how about flushable toilets, a technology based on gravity alone, and which would have saved thousands of lives lost to dysentery and cholera in the time of his alleged ministry, and tens of millions in the two millennia since.
Three year ministry, and not a single new, original, or even marginally useful thing said.
Fascinating, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Have I argued anything about whether or not the Earth is flat John?
What I want to know is this. If you are already familiar with the arguments I would use, why ask? Do you think you will learn something from me or are you just trying to waste my time?
If you were as intellectually honest as you claim to be, you would say something like. “It is common for skeptics to say the Bible teaches the Earth is flat but it doesn’t and here’s why…”
I get you don’t believe in God John, a lot of people don’t. What I don’t get is why you consistently butcher Scripture to make your points.
This is as intellectual as you telling me I’m not a real Christian becuase I haven’t sold everything I own like Jesus told me to.
Do you have any idea how tedious talking to you is?
LikeLike
I didn’t ask you to give me your excuses.
James, the Hebrew word for sphere is Kadur. It is not used anywhere in the bible, and Isaiah most certainly does not use it. He uses the word for an ordinary flat “circle.”
So, are you going to address the fact that Jesus didn’t offer an accurate cosmogony? How about epilepsy, James. People were stoned to death in Palestine for this in the 1st century. Did Jesus have a moral duty to save these people from this tremendous injustice? Earthquakes, James… Why did Jesus let people continue to believe God sent these disasters?
What about a simple world map, James, or a word about the causes of malaria, dysentery and cholera?
Or do you want to talk about Tupperware now, because these other things are far too awkward?
LikeLike
John,
The Bible, of course, teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above “the circle of the earth”. The Hebrew word for circle, chuwg can also mean roundabout, sphere, circuit, or something that has circular boundaries.
Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time, on different sides.
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 – “the circle of the earth.”
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.
The reality here John is that nearly all medieval scholars believed the world to be spherical.
Even early Christian church leaders saw no need to distance themselves from any understanding of the Earth’s sphericity. The only identifiable flat-earthers are Lactantius (c.265-345), Cosmas Indicopleustes (c.540), Severian of Gabala (c.380), possibly Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-430) and possibly Diodore of Tarsus (d.394).
Auguste Compte (1798-1857) developed the philosophy of positivism, with its concept of progress, step by step, from superstition to science. This led to the idea that “religion” (in particular Catholic and Protestant Christianity) was but a step beyond superstition but definitely a step back from real science. Religion had to be swept away if mankind was to progress to truth (This is also your belief, no?). This approach led to the metaphor of “warfare” to describe the relationship between science and religion. Such a conflict was first articulated by William Whewell, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1837. Important developments of the warfare metaphor were by John Draper in “The history of the conflict between religion and science” (1873) and by Andrew Dickson White in his “History of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom” (1896).
All three of these men pointed at Lactantius and Cosmas as influential leaders of the Flat Earth belief even though the Church viewed them as heretics.
Bottom line here John, is that you have soaked up the idea that Christianity is inherently anti-scientific and that it has frequently acted to oppose science. Untrue to be sure but you must think that way in order to make your lack of belief sound rational.
LikeLike
The Hebrew word for circle,chuwg can also mean roundabout, sphere, circuit, or something that has circular boundaries.
Errrm, no, the Hebrew word for sphere is Kadur. If the author wanted to say “sphere” or “round” they would have used that word. Period.
James, don’t you ever get tired of having to present excuses that aren’t even the slightest bit convincing?
The reality here John is that nearly all medieval scholars believed the world to be spherical.
Yes, the Muslims re-introduced Greek thought to Europe, that’s why. Didn’t you know this?
So, James… epilepsy, earthquakes, malaria, dysentery, cholera, world map… Are you going to address these things, or are we back to Tupperware?
LikeLike
As dismissive as I figured your reply would be John.
This is why I have begun ignoring your comments.
Keep telling yourself I am afraid of debates John when the reality is you just bore me.
Good day, and this time I mean it.
James
LikeLike
Are you denying the Hebrew word for “sphere” is “Kadur”?
Now, if the author wanted to say sphere, or ball, he would have used Kadur, not the word for a flat “circle.”
James, did the author use the word, Kadur? No. And if the author had meant to say sphere, or ball, then he would have said sphere or ball, and there really wouldn’t be any need for your devastatingly unconvincing excuses for why he didn’t say sphere or ball, would there?
So, James, back to the actual subject… accurate cosmogony, epilepsy, earthquakes, malaria, dysentery, cholera, world map…
You want to address why Jesus didn’t say anything new, original, or even vaguely useful?
I guess not.
If this were your blog you would, of course, ban me right here, wouldn’t you. This is the point where you show your true colours.
So, drop the charade James. Lying to oneself is about the most pathetic thing imaginable.
LikeLike
Unlike you John, I get the meaning as it was written without second guessing what words the authors should have used.
If this were my blog, I wouldn’t ban you now but I would try to end the discussion before you changed the subject (as you’re trying to do here) to malaria, earthquakes, Tupperware, NFL Sunday Ticket, or yoga then started posting random excerpts from your book 🙂
LikeLike
No, the subject was always about accurate cosmogony, epilepsy, earthquakes, malaria, dysentery, cholera, world map… Or did you really just want to talk about Tupperware?
The topic you opened, James, was about the rather awkward and embarrassing fact that Jesus didn’t say a single new, original, or even marginally useful thing.
You opened the subject, and now you’re running away from it.
Odd, but otherwise entirely predictable behaviour on your part.
But James, if the urge ever grabs you, you’re most certainly welcome over on my blog. Unlike you, I’m entirely confident in my position and welcome an open and free exchange of ideas… No banning, no editing of people’s comments, and no deleting of comments.
LikeLike
That should read, “sphere” or “ball”
LikeLike
So I should let you comment so we can have a long intellectual chat like the one you are having with XPRAETORIUS?
Nah, I’ll pass, not worth the time.
LikeLike
Correct, you desire only an echo-chamber.
So James, stop lying. Quit the charade, its pathetic. Either set your blog to Private, or make it perfectly clear in your header that you are not interested in discussing anything, and will tolerate only those voices which confirm your cartoon version of reality.
Just stop pretending you’re something you’re not. Can’t you at least be honest with yourself?
LikeLike
As I have said John. I will discuss anything with reasonable people which you, Ark, and KIA are not.
I will moderate comments on my blog as I see fit, like it or don’t, I don’t care.
Now, good day. I don’t waste time with you on my blog, no point in doing it here
LikeLike
Enjoy your echo-chamber, and here’s hoping one day you stop lying to yourself, and to the world.
LikeLike
Yes, Ark’s a special case, indeed. He was one of my first blogging friends and he takes lovely photographs. But if he was calling me names on a daily basis I can imagine I wouldn’t enjoy his blogging company much. I used to think there were no grounds for banning, but having asked a few people to leave my blog now, I can understand. Sometimes it just becomes tiring and unpleasant. I’m sorry to hear you’ve been having death threats, that’s just sad.
However, I’ve just seen the strapline on your blog. It advertises itself as being there for the doubters and the lost, as much as for people who share your beliefs, which does give you something of an obligation to deal as much as possible with differing opinions, don’t you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Violet, I understand. I have conversations with doubters as often as I can and try to be as gracious as I can be to all who comment here, regardless of what they believe.
That being said, I have a history with a few bloggers that has not been too pleasant, therefore I chose to just ignore them.
Ask KIA about his regular “swatting a gnat” posts he did on his old blog. What obligation do I have to let someone who obviously can’t stand me or my beliefs comment on my blog? Better, I think, to turn the other cheek.
Sad that people equate not putting up with rude behavior as intellectual cowardice.
James
LikeLike
Ark does take wonderful photos, I have told him so on a few occasions myself.
If he stuck strictly to photos, he would have ten times the readers he does now. I think the fact that he and his commenters are so rude and hateful in his religious posts negatively affects how many readers he has.
LikeLike
This doesn’t seem to have any semblance to truth.
LikeLike
And if it was true, would it matter? Are we playing a sly popularity game or writing honestly about things that matter to us?
LikeLike
Yes it would matter. I don’t think they are rude or hateful. At least I know I am not full of hate or rude, sarcastic maybe.
And again no to sly popularity game.
And I can’t answer for anyone, but I write about things that matter to me, things I find interesting or that I find disgusting but where I would want to hear what others think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure does. Photo blogs are hugely popular. Many of them I follow get nearly 100 likes per post and dozens of cokments.
As good as Ark’s photos are, and they are stunning, why do so few people see them? Can I prove my point? Nope but I don’t think it’s entirely invalid.
LikeLike
Sorry I took up so much of your space Violet, I’m done here now.
James
LikeLike
No problem, all discussion is welcome here. I quite like that question of John’s, it is terribly awkward. And I do frequently disagree with John – ask me if I think theism is natural.
Anyway, I think if I were still a Christian I would respond with the fact that Jesus wasn’t supposed to have all the knowledge in the world, or all the knowledge he would have had in heaven, down here on Earth. He asked the god God for answers and guidance, didn’t he?
The most awkward part about it is that he did do miracles, which shows there was a keen desire to ‘prove’ his divinity with supernatural powers, which would really have been more convincingly demonstrated in the longer term by this ‘new or original’ challenge of John’s. The miracle about the demons and the pigs is particularly disturbing and retrogressive for many reasons, not least for the damage this kind of superstitious thinking has caused, and still can cause, to the lives of people with mental health problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
I actually did respond to John some time ago in a post of my own that he acknowledged but did not weigh in on.
LikeLike
How can i comment if you’ve banned me from commenting? Honestly, you people are baffling in your silliness.
LikeLike
You weren’t banned when I wrote it and you didn’t comment except briefly. What has changed John?
LikeLike
In that case, I obviously wasn’t’ at all impressed with your attempt. Much like i’m equally not impressed with your performance here. What was your suggestion of something new, original, or marginally useful?
LikeLike
You must be impressed to a certain degree or you wouldn’t bother with me at all.
If I read something on a blog I find unimpressive I ignore it and go on about my day. You, on the other hand, spend an extraordinary amount of time debating small time bloggers you claim you have no respect for. Why?
Is this useful to you in any way or do you just like to waste time?
LikeLike
James, what was your suggestion as to something new, original, or marginally useful?
Honestly, i can’t remember what you offered, so i’m guessing it was easily ignored. Was it something new, original, or marginally useful, james?
LikeLike
Want me to allow your comments John?
The reason you are banned is not becuase I fear engagement or, as you like to believe, that I can’t hold my own against the great atheist thinker, John Zande.
The reason you are banned is because you comment endlessly. When someone comments on my blog I have kind of an obligation to reply. With you and your lengthy comments that never stop, there isn’t time.
This may come as a surprise but I did not start a blog so I could spend all of my time entertaining John Z.
Besides, your responses to my posts are the same worn out replies every Christian on the Internet has been refuting for 15 years and passages from your book that I have no plans to read.
James
LikeLike
No, you banned me because I embarrassed you continuously on your blog, and you really didn’t like that. Now, i did not set out to embarrass you, or anyone… It just happens when your belief systems are shown to be nonsense.
I can, at the very least, understand this.
Still, censorship and banning is really nothing but a certain sign of a persons insecurity in their own positions.
So you doubt, and you’re insecure, and you really can’t defend your beliefs… i get that, too.
LikeLike
As I recall you’ve not embarrassed me even once.
LikeLike
If that helps you sleep at night, sure…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have had atheists post before, send me a link and I may. You can even send a link to my blog if you want. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, but if I can’t comment there’s really no point, is there.
So, James, tell me: what did you suggest was new, original, or marginally useful?
Are you embarrassed to say it here? Is it not terribly convincing? Is it a little pathetic?
LikeLike
James, I counted your comments on this post, I think there were 38. At least you are not commenting endlessly here.
By the way I find it ironic that Ark is still allowed to comment on your blog yet he was the example you provided of the type of commenter you blocked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, by the way James presents it, you would think i was on his blog just commenting to myself.
LikeLike
Odd you would take the time to count Peter.
Ark is a special case. Although he is banned, generally, he never stops commenting so I occasionally let some get through.
As far as my commenting far too much on this thread, can’t answer why I’m doing it. Good news is, I’ll lose interest soon and won’t be back.
LikeLike
James, surely you know I am obsessed with you.
As an aside I had a look at your site and noticed a post entitled “Homosexuality, The Most Pressing Issue of Our Times”. I won’t waste my time reading it, especially as I can’t comment. I assume it is either a comedy post or you folk have totally lost the plot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter, best belly laugh of the day . . . you crack me up. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
John is persistent in his points, but they are always logically sound and politely presented.
I can’t help it, I’m a Taurus. Which reminds me, i have to look up my horoscope for today. I can’t possibly deride unjustified religious nonsense without knowing what the stars say first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Point of order, James. I do not hate. Despise, yes. Hate, no, not really. And I especially do not hate gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, it is very brave of you to make this post. I agree it is wise to avoid posting when angry.
I would not be concerned about the critique of our friend James I will take my advice from Thumper and say nothing about James
LikeLike
Deary me, he’s not a popular chap, even with the most gentle among us!
LikeLike
Really Peter? You talk about me all the time. It’s why you can’t comment on my blog any more either.
LikeLike
James I know you doubt the integrity of people like Mike and me who claim we had been committed Christians, that is your right. I also realise that I have commented about you behind your back here and and on Ark’s blog. I am not proud of my behaviour but I don’t resile from the sentiment of what I expressed.
After my faith crumbled earlier this year I searched the internet to find Christians who were open to discuss the issues that concerned me. Initially I thought you might be that sort of person, but our discussions never got anywhere. Once my comments started disappearing from your site I stopped commenting there. I thought you were deliberately deleting my comments, but in retrospect I wonder if somehow they were diverted to your spam file, I don’t know.
There are a few beacons of light I have found on the internet, Christians who show something of the love and compassion that I thought was meant to be part of the faith such as myisleofserenity. Despite my disagreements with Wally and Bruce (godsmanforever) I have some respect for their dealings with others where they do show a degree of empathy. But that is the exception not the norm. If God does exist I hope he is more loving and merciful than what I have seen in the majority of his followers.
I realise I am far from perfect so feel free to criticise me.
LikeLike
Peter,
Do you want to speak with compassionate Christians about faith or would you rather seek comfort from non-believers who enjoy childish mockery?
By the comments you make and the company you keep, I have concluded the latter is true.
If I am wrong about you I apologize but I have been doing this long enough to be able to tell who is a sincere seeker and who is not.
James
LikeLike
I know your question is directed to Peter, but I have a few of my own.
What is wrong with mockery, childish or otherwise?
Your question on whom he wants to spend time with is rather curious. What is the problem with spending time with unbelievers? And why should faith be treated as a virtue?
LikeLike
What is wrong with childish mockery? Well, it’s childish and we are not children so…
If mockery is a person’s thing, fine, to each his own. But, I am under no obligation to tolerate it.
LikeLike
Maybe it is childish to believe in talking donkeys and snakes, pregnant virgins, fish transport or that a 500 year old dude built an ark and ferried slugs and mosquitoes in it and the only way to deal with it is mockery
LikeLike
Sad you feel that acting like a child is a good way to deal with anything.
LikeLike
It is sadder still that you think childish beliefs should get special treatment
LikeLike
This is a pointless discussion
LikeLike
Also Mak. I really don’t care who people spend time with, it’s their business. Problem I have is when people come to my blog acting as if they are friendly and willing to have an open and honest discussion then go elsewhere and make fun.
Do I truly care what people say about me? Not really but I don’t have to put up with them, do i?
LikeLike
But it does seem you care about what people say about or else you would not be complaining about it.
What type of friendly debate do you want? Those who agree with you or even those who don’t?
LikeLike
Doesn’t bother me. I just mention it as justification for blocking and banning.
If I truly lost sleep over negative things people say I wouldn’t have a blog that invites hate, would I?
LikeLike
Ah, I think someone already said you don’t have to give a justification for banning. It is your blog and your rules. I only block those I don’t like and so far there is only one person who has made it that far.
As to inviting hate, I don’t know. But the number of times I have read your blog, I have left disappointed with the content, but this is my problem not yours.
LikeLike
By inviting hate, I meant Christianity in general. Blog about Jesus and the trolls will come.
LikeLike
I blog about Jesus once every so often but I don’t see them trolls. Maybe you should broadcast my blog 😀.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have had atheists post before, send me a link and I may. You can even send a link to my blog if you want. 🙂
LikeLike
James, I have this challenge on my blog, maybe you could help
LikeLike
Based on the responses so far, it seems no one is taking this very seriouly. Why would any Christian want anything to do with such childish mockery?
I appreciate the offer but I’ll pass 🙂
LikeLike
Humor me, James, why would what others say bother you? You can have your say too. Better still, you can answer on your blog and link my blog
LikeLike
Nah, I’ll pass.
LikeLike
Tell you what Mak. I’ll bump an older post that kind of speaks to this but that is all the time I am willing to invest.
LikeLike
I should be happy that you found time to do this I guess 🙂 I will read it when I find time kesho
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mak, I see that James has kindly reposted a post from August which happens to have includes some of my comments. Thank you James for explaining (in your appended comment of 2 December) how that demonstrates why it was necessary to ban me from your site. I am still genuinely bemused how you and Dan can claim I take things out of context. But it must be in the eye of the beholder, the experts I studied under at Bible Seminary had a different view to you, they awarded me a Distinction in Biblical Hermeneutics, which required a clear understanding of context, but they are only acknowledged experts, what would they know?
Sorry Violet, I am getting a bit sarcastic here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You were banned on his blog? Must be for being too nice. I think you should not be so nice.
LikeLike
Mak, James has provided a total of five separate reasons for me being banned:
1. talking about him on other blogs;
2. keeping in bad blog company;
3. not understanding context;
4. asking endless questions;
5. asking inane questions.
Though to be fair points 4 and 5 sort of merge. Probably would have been best if he had stuck with reason 1.
The reason I started to comment on James on other blogs was that my comments started to disappear from his site. The particular post that got to me was where chaplapreneur had referred to Josephus as evidence of Jesus from other sources. I explained why historians had doubts about this evidence and a little while later this and my other responses to the claims made by chaplapreneur disappeared from the post.
LikeLike
I have read the repost. First, it doesn’t answer my challenge. For example, he quotes this Psalm
Who made them blind? Why did god allow them to be made prisoner? Is it true that this god watches over the alien? These claims need to be supported. Just listing them and claiming victory doesn’t get us anywhere
LikeLike
I never doubt anyone’s integrity Peter. I ban and block people based on their behavior.
LikeLike
I don’t see the point of Peter’s banning. He gives many verses saying that prayer is answered. There is almost no context for Luke 17:6, which he quotes: verse 5 is relevant, but verses 4 and 7 are separate sayings of Jesus.
This is the context:
5 The apostles said to the Lord, ‘Increase our faith!’ 6 The Lord replied, ‘If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, “Be uprooted and planted in the sea”, and it would obey you.
That he does not give context is an unfair criticism.
There are other verses on prayer, but are there any on prayer being not answered?
LikeLike
Peter was banned because he asked questions that have obvious answers endlessly.
LikeLike
I just popped over to read that post and I must say, after our discussion about banning, I’m shocked you would ban someone being so polite and reasonable, engaged in a serious conversation. He was genuinely asking in what way those verses could be considered out of context, and he got banned? It certainly looks like you and Dan couldn’t handle a discussion with someone who clearly knows more about the Bible than you. “Dan, I really struggle to understand this accusation of yours. Please explain how I have I have taken these texts out of context.” Shocking you couldn’t politely reply to such a reasonable request. (Note I’m replying here because after reading that I wouldn’t trust you to let my comment stand.)
I’m also wondering if you’ve let my comments stand in the past because 1. I have nowhere near that detailed knowledge of the Bible and 2. I don’t have time to follow up conversations on other blogs the way I used to, the way I’d consider appropriate for a reasonable discussion. I know I’ve left lots of discussions hanging in the last few months. I’m really disappointed James.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
Peter wasn’t banned because of that. I added that comment today in case anyone wondered why his comment was there.
He was banned because he repeatedly asked inane questions.
Clare’s response to Peter taking verses out of context was great. Peter simply said “I don’t understand what you mean by out of context.”
He did this all the time and it was incredibly frustrating.
As far as your comments go, you haven’t commented here much at all and all of them still stand, as written.
Now, if you don’t mind, I am done defending why I banned Peter.
James
LikeLike
Just to clarify one point. The reason I asked all the questions on the slavery post was because Dan turned up and adopted his usual approach of insulting anyone who does not accept the Bible as divinely inspired. Whilst he uses Biblical language he selects the texts that imply all who are non Believers are vile, fools, love evil and doing nothing of any worth.
Dan might see that as a useful interaction, but I consider it in such an exchange a deliberate and calculated insult.
What I was attempting to do was to demonstrate to Dan was that if he considered the Bible so true and perfect why do it promises not actually work. Consequently this should cause considerable doubt regarding the reliability of the Bible.
LikeLike
If all you got was positive feedback, you would have to ask yourself if people were lying to you.
LikeLike
That’s true. I don’t mind negative feedback at all. My favourite Aesop Fable is one where a man and his son are taking a donkey to market and attempt to take the advice of every judgemental person they pass, till it becomes ridiculous. I apply it to my everyday life. But I do think some of my blog standards were slipping …
LikeLike
I feel bad for James. Why should he take offence when his religious beliefs are mocked? They are worthy of derision and mockery by anyone who can. He demands respect for his faith, on what grounds?
LikeLike
Perhaps on the grounds that it is the fruit of a tradition lasting three thousand years and accepted by billions of people. Perhaps you could attack individual bits: I don’t know if James is a biblical literalist, but if so you could cite evidence for four billion years of Earth history, and the wonders of how we know that a day lasted 22 hours, so many million years ago. I heard the Bach Magnificat last night. It was Glorious. Do you find James and John’s tis.tisn’t argument above edifying? I wondered if James could refer to a single commenter who has “critiqued” his faith and not been banned from his blog, for if he could he could have refuted John’s assertion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I stopped reading James blog long ago. If something is to be revered because it is old, then maybe he should consider being a Hindu or Buddhist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Old, yet continually growing and developing. It meets needs people have, now.
LikeLike
A lie continually retold to look believable.
LikeLike
Actually Clare, the list of people who have been banned from my blog is fairly short. If I have to name one who is allowed to critique my faith, how about Violet. She is always welcome.
What about GC, an atheist who is also a contributor here?
James
LikeLiked by 1 person
I ban people too. Given that I am trans, my main banning is those who say I am going to Hell for it, or alternatively that I am a sexual pervert. Even those, though, I give some latitude; I tend to ban after they repeat themselves with no variation quite a lot.
Sometimes I wonder if we are better blogging and commenting in our own little groups, reassuring ourselves of our own correctness. I see few dialogues between trans and TERFs, and they could not get far. I post on homosexuality as the acid test of Christianity, sometimes: someone who believes gay sex is necessarily sinful has no respect for the Bible, or understanding of God or Jesus, so their faith is vitiated; we could lock horns on that one, I suppose, but with more heat than light. Briefly, the case is: David and Jonathan, Ruth’s declaration of love to Naomi, the Centurion’s pais, the fact that all that stuff about shellfish and mixed fibres is no longer considered binding, and just about everything Jesus said; you and I could tediously rehash so many comment threads on that, if we could be bothered. My comment policy is “Don’t bore me”. I am well aware of the trolling tactic of a throwaway line which needs lengthy, careful argument to refute: why should I waste my time on that?
Now, I edit enemy comments to mock them. Possibly, I will go through my current boundary, which is that currently I make it clear I have edited.
Repetition gets to me. Particular people have made their point: saying it more than once does not strengthen it.
I have greater patience if it appears there is a chance of someone, including me, changing their mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare,
There are people who call themselves Christians out there who wilfully troll blogs like yours simply to cause trouble, their behavior is as abhorrent as that of any atheist, and they should be banned and ignored.
My comment policy is basically the same as yours, “don’t bore me.”
Although I have only had this blog a little over a year, I have been talking to non-believers online and in person a long time. They may think they have some bit of information that will silence Christians once and for all but, very rarely, do I hear anything new or particularly inspired.
Bottom line here, I guess, is. Why do people comment on blogs when they know the conversation will only end in anger? There are a ton of blogs out there, not only religious and atheist, that I could comment on but don’t because I don’t need or want the headache.
Conversation is fine and disagreement is fine but discourse on the internet is, more often than not, frustrating and pointless.
James
LikeLiked by 1 person
The internet has lots of sharp elbows, and you can’t blame yourself for being human. If you want to be more polite, good, but you also can’t let others define you.
And you have always been nicer to me that I deserve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t remember being nice to you dp, have you been drinking? 🙂
It’s not a matter of letting others define me, it’s recognising behaviour that was offending other people (several other people) and placing the need for dialogue above the need for point scoring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I want to speak up for commenting when emotional. Most of us have not done proper research about the issues in a University, just honed a bit of debate on the internet. If we just comment intellectually, we will say stuff which others have said better, many times before. If we express feeling, that will be an authentic human reaction which might speak directly to another in a way that a considered intellectual response will not.
Anger, sometimes, is OK. Mockery less so, perhaps.
Also, conversation can get deeper if we share what we Love, rather than what we dislike.
And while atheists disagree with “God is my saviour” as a proposition or understanding of the world, “How does it make you feel?” or “How does it make you respond to others?” are worthwhile questions. If you can get out of a tis/tisn’t argument- “God does not exist! Does! Does not! Does too!” you could find meaningful sharing.
I feel you are being vulnerable here, and that encourages greater openness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
” If we express feeling, that will be an authentic human reaction which might speak directly to another in a way that a considered intellectual response will not.”
I think that’s a really good point Clare. For our opinions and attitudes to be viewed and properly understood in context, we need to know how they affect other people, and cold description, and indeed speculation, don’t cut it. I don’t think your comments with emotion need any kind of justification.
My point about me commenting while distracted or irritated, is that I don’t properly consider where other people are coming from. My joining in any mud slinging that results from ‘authentic human reaction’ doesn’t help the conversation, and gives people the impression they have to take sides.
I’ll take one thing from Tildeb’s rants, in that he said banning is a form of bullying, and I appreciate I could have politely explained that I found Arch’s comments and attitude to be intolerable rude and offensive, and I’d rather he didn’t comment on my posts anymore. I’m sure he currently thinks he did nothing wrong, whereas if it had been handled another way, he might have, might have, seen it differently.
I don’t want to spoil anything, but I don’t think I’m vulnerable. I’m just being practical and sensible about how dialogue functions. I also think it’s important to consider feedback in the absence of pride and arrogance – I’m terrible at charging around thinking I’m right … like most humans. 😀
LikeLike
Although it might seem otherwise, I do the 24-wait, sometimes 48-hours if a post or comment really sends me off the wall. In fact, as you mentioned recently on mine, I often read, think, wait, think again before commenting.
Mockery? Well, it’s part of human nature isn’t it? Permanent mockery is not necessarily good. And as you said to Carmen, a sarcastic exchange can be enjoyable. So long as one isn’t on the receiving end I suspect. But there’s a fine line between sarcasm and blatant unnecessary insults.
Depends what, if anything we are all trying to achieve with our blogs. When people say they’ve learned something or changed their point of view after reading my blog, then it doesn’t feel like a pointless exercise. But there again, I don’t tackle religion as a major topic 😉
LikeLike
“Depends what, if anything we are all trying to achieve with our blogs.” True, we’re all blogging for different reasons. Hopefully we’re all learning something, but maybe it’s just another tool for confirmation bias, keep everyone in their corners.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you and I were the only ones talking to each other, we would end up forming an echo chamber and you would have plenty of positive feedback. 😉
On banning. I agree what Clare Flourish once said, that you are the “monarch” of your blog and you may ban anyone without even a need to explain or excuse the descision. This applies to every blogger. I have been banned from several blogs, and I bet on occasion, it was because someone thought I was mocking their religious stance, even though I had not gotten that far yet.
Not mocking stupid ideas is a hard task. For example, religious people often seem to take it as a form of mockery even when you are simply pointing out some of the inconsistensies in their particular faith. I can see why people have this notion of demanding that their unverified beliefs should be taken with respect, as they have been taught that those ideas are worth respect, even if they objectively speaking are only respectable in the sense of cultural tradition. Cultural traditions demand a certain amount of respect for us to coexist peacefully. However, if people first present a claim and a seemingly open challenge to discuss their beliefs on the grounds that they do think these ideas are verifiable, but then when they can not substantiate the verifications to their respective beliefs, other than blind faith, is pointing that much out mockery?
As for editing the comments of others, I do not think that this is an honest way of discussion as such. What you do here when you quote someone, that is different, as you always post the link to the original, so that if people are interrested they can go and read the entire story. Here in Finland we have this site kept by “nerd girls” who have a great edition policy, though. If someone writes an angry comment with curse words, threats (and it is surprizing how many dudes present a need to threat to rape them, when they write about stuff that seems to threaten the very weak male identity of some rather conservative dudes) and what have you impolite badmouthing, they post the comment, but simply edit the vile language, by replacing curse words with nicer words like flowers and bambies and what have you.
I often write to my own blog when I am tired, irritated or even angry. I try to warn about this on my about-page. Same applies to a lot of my commenting. When I am in good strength and have a clear mind, I usually have something better to do, than to write comments in the internet.
As for the pace of posting things, I do not spend enough time on the computer reading blogs to really follow a lot of good blogs I have found out there, that post way too rapidly for me, never mind commenting on them. Discussions here have been almost always worth while, even though I have not always read each and every post even you posted, let alone every comment on every post.
In the end I would like to give you some positive feedback. Your blog has been for me a very good place for me to reflect my thoughts with a variety of different people. I have met here and through you a bunch of very interresting people and at first glance to me, your blog is about beautifull flowers, curious insects and refreshing new views on things.
LikeLike
I am flattered to be quoted after; and I do not quite fit the accusation of dishonesty. When I edit the comments of others, it is a way of shutting discussion down, because further discussion has no value.
Kay Brown’s sole idea, which she reiterates tediously, is that there are two kinds of trans women: those like her, who are real women, and those like me, who are sex pervert men. So I deleted her comment, leaving only her picture, and replaced it with an apology. This stopped her commenting again.
Reiterating the point, even with additional detail- was Lactantius a heretic? Is kadur the only Hebrew word which would unequivocally mean that the world was a sphere, and others merely say the world was round? Bless my soul, how fascinating- really adds nothing.
Also on that post, I was extremely rude editing the commenter Wxhluyp, and he has not come back either. I happen to find my mockery amusing.
I had a man on my blog who does not think women should have the vote, and linked to screeds of verbiage arguing that point of view. I edited and mocked. I left in his moralising about rape- he is against the rape of “chaste” women- editing to express my disgust. Eventually he gave up. I am willing to show the vileness of some corners of the internet, but I do not need a particularly large sample of it.
LikeLike
You know Clare Flourish, that I am a fan of yours. 🙂 I may quote you in the future, but I hope you will correct me, if I ever misquote you. I expect you have good reasons for any editing you may have ever done, but my point of quoting you, is that you and every blogger has the right to block anyone they very well please. As we all have our own right to speculate why someone would ever bann anyone. Did I get this right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Raut, I’m glad you get something useful coming here. As you know, I’m always keen to hear your thoughts, as there seems to be very little we disagree on, but you have a refreshing way of looking at things.
I think it’s particularly important to have your input on a blog like this that challenges religion, given that you are one of the few bloggers I know with such a wealth of historical understanding who also comes from a background completely devoid of religion. Most of the rest of us were brought up with some level of religious indoctrination in our lives. And of course, the cultural differences are intriguing too. I can’t imagine you being irritated or angry though, and I’ve felt anything like that in your posts or comments – you are one of the most level-headed bloggers I’ve come across.
LikeLike
Well, my family life may have been devoid of religion, but religion exists in the surrounding society, even as secular as the one I have grown up in.
Speaking of wich. There was this very funny incident here in Finland today, when a school had attended church. A trainee priest had told the little kids that there actually is no Santa Claus and that mommy and daddy buy the prezzies. First of all, our constitution says, that religion should not be taught in an indoctrinative way and that no confessional traits of any religion should be demanded from the kids, so taking them to church was kind of asking for it. Second, the kids had immidiately started to act out their anxiety on this “revelation” from authority. Thirdly, there was a lot of commotion among the parents and some Swedish newspapers were the first ones to report on the incident. The parish priest has appologized for this, but the trainee has not commented on the issue. Last, the entire story has become a laughing stock of everybody.
Nobody says it out aloud, that the priest kind of pulled the rug from under his own feet, but one can sense it from between the lines of how people have commented the story.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing how people show their irritation and how much of any mockery actually sticks on. I recently run into a nincompoop, who expected me to remember a conversation we had in a blog commentary many months ago, even though our discussion really did not present anything new, or interresting to me, exept once again to be surpriced by how ignorant people can be and what sort of mental gymnastics they are ready to go through to keep true to their identity, be that identity build on what ever misconceptions and blind faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a great story! I just googled it and something similar happened in the UK last year as well. Talk about walking on eggshells …
LikeLike
First up. What a marvelous header photo. May I ”nick” it to use as a header for a while? Credit will be given.
LikeLike
Thank you! I was wondering if anyone would notice it. I think it’s a rather lovely bee.
LikeLike
Bee. Fair enough. Now, can I nick it for a while?
LikeLike
Of course. You usually do without asking. 🙂
LikeLike
Not true! (Sticks out tongue)
LikeLike
no mocking people for their views
I think it is right to mock faith where such faith is responsible for damaging and hurting people, especially kids.
If people refuse to recognise the harm religion and /or will not even consider rational discussion on the matter, then mocking it is.
Sure beats entering a Family Planning Clinic acting on some warped idea of morality based on some screwed up extremist ranting then shooting the shit out of patients and staff?
And a cop of course, who was a minister in a local church, would you believe.
I wonder if one of these anti-abortionists would like to sit the cop’s two small kids down and explain how this was done for Jesus and we can’t restrict gun ownership – even to screwed in the head religious nutters.
Happy xmas …. ho ho ho.
Fuck you god, and the talking donkey you rode into Jerusalem on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks you sir for providing the proof of the necessity for moderation at the wild and wonderful word of WP.
I rest my case.
LikeLike
Aren’t you so lucky that there are still nice people that don’t moderate.
Send kisses to Violet, CS,
Please, for goodness sake, take the carrot out your backside, you moth -eaten flea bag of a Serengeti Carnivore.
If you want to screw with kids’ minds and poison their hearts then you should expect your views to be challenged – and mocked.
Besides, if Jesus was porking his beloved disciple, and Mary Magdalene, and Priests are buggering kids worldwide under the mantle of your god then you should be okay with the occasional metaphorical shafting.
For a big fierce lion you do so act like a little pussy, sheesh!
LikeLike
Ha. You are making it far too easy for others to see what flows easily from a godless mind.
At least others who share your godlessness have better sense, and have their tongues a bit more under harness..
Once again, thank you.
(The importance of feedback…………)
LikeLike
You just have no sense of the narrative CS.
And you don’t even tip your cap in acknowledgment of the vile Catholic Shirtlifters.
Tsk Tsk
What would Jesus say?
Probably sweet F.A. or something unintelligible in Hebrew.
קבל את החמורש, אתה חרא קטן , זה הנסיעה שלי ! ‘
Maybe you ought to stick that carrot back in your backside?
LikeLike
Ark, please don’t swear at or mock other blog guests. I’m not sure what you think your silly tirades achieve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, be fair. According to Matthew [21:7] Jesus was riding on two animals at the same time, a Donkey and it’s colt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Violet,
We may not agree on a host of things, but I Iove your blog. Part of why I enjoy it so much is precisely because you take no quarter and show no mercy in your arguing. You can give it out, and I am pretty sure you can take it!
I think your ability to listen to the criticism of others speaks well of you and your advice is something we may all want to consider.
LikeLike
Thanks Jim, I’m glad you’re still sticking around to give your opinion from one of the more open versions of Christian thinking. It’s too easy to think we’re right all the time, and shut everything else out – and it’s an illogical way to think. There are so many opinions and so many people out there, we have to conclude we can’t always be right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, I’ve said it before, but it’s worth saying again — you are one of my top favorite bloggers. I can’t even begin to tell you how therapeutic your blog has been for me since I first started following. I love your transparency, your realness and open-mindedness. I have grown to love the person you are.
LikeLike
Oh for goodness sake! You can’t praise a ginger… they get all weird and disappear in the moors, reappearing weeks later dressed in nothing but jewelry made from mushrooms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know, right? The nerve of her having a life outside of the blogosphere. I guess she doesn’t realize that some of us go through withdrawal.
Oh, and speaking of earthy jewelry, did you ever receive that uranium ore jewelry?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haven’t ordered any yet. I do, though, have it saved in favourites 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of your finer pieces of work.
LikeLike
Rushed, but adequate
LikeLike
Really? That’s so nice of you, thank you! John’s right though (I can see the next comment looming on my notifications) I do get weird in the face of any kind of praise – it’s not just the ginger, it’s a Scottish thing. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m half Scottish. Think Stirling Castle. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: additional points on the challenge | Random thoughts
I hope you are successful in your endeavor.
LikeLike
Ha, doing my best. I’ve already replied to something in irritation. 🙂
LikeLike
Good on you violet!
LikeLike
Well, all credit to you, I’m sure you were the tipping point on the scale.
LikeLike
You should follow this blog and help them see things from another Christian perspective:
https://thei535project.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
I see James is back into banning mode:
https://thei535project.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/why-do-i-ban-commenters/
I sense there is some serious internal conflict going on in our friend and these sort of posts are part of his attempt to justify actions that he knows in his heart are questionable.
James quotes:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him”.
– Proverbs 26:4
So my response is
“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes”. – Proverbs 26:5
So I conclude that by failing to answer folk such as myself James is making me think I am wise when according to the Bible I am not.
In one thing I have shown wisdom I chose not to comment on James’ blog after he lifted his ban on commentators.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love this comment: “Christians are not trying to shut anyone else down.”
Mmmm, I guess that Kim Davis wasn’t really trying to impose her religion on other people. Or what about the Christian terrorist, Dear, who murdered healthcare workers. He was trying to impose his beliefs on anyone, was he?
Seriously, can these people truly be this blind, and still be considered sane?
LikeLike
John it was only the enlightenment that led to Christian societies becoming tolerant. It was not the reformation that caused tolerance as Protestant Christians like to argue. There were three great Christian reformers of the reformation:
– Luther, who encouraged the German nobility in the forceful repression of the German peasants and the subjugation of the Jews,
– Calvin who acquiesced in having Michael Servetus burnt at the stake for suggesting the Trinity might not be Biblical and who fined people for not going to Church, and
– Zwingli who applied a food blockade to the Catholic Cantons of Switzerland and who died in battle when the Cantons responded with force.
All of them soaked in blood and intolerance. Even the greatest of Christian figures a millennium earlier did not have clean hands. Augustine used the force of the state to compel the Donatist rebels to return to the Church. Whilst John Chrysostom was vitriolic in his rhetoric against the Jews.
The story of history is that when Christians have managed to combine religious and political power the outcome for those who don’t toe the line is severe indeed.
If only more Christians truly understood their history they would see that those fought for the betterment of society such as Wilberforce were the exception and fought against many in the Church itself. The great hero of American evangelicals, Jonathan Edwards, was a slave owner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Miss Wisp. But (always a ‘but’, but) feedback is discussion/debate and without such we crash and burn, no? The nice folks I call professional trolls can be safely ignored, but if genuine discussion gets heated, all the better really.
And where ruffles are feathered and feelings offended, there has to be a reason. Misunderstandings and miscommunication are common reasons—my own greatest dread is offending someone by accident. Usually if I offend it’s because I damn’ well mean to (which face it, ain’t often).
And if we’re talking religion (there’s quite a few of them) then who better to offend than bigots?
LikeLike
I’m not sure I get you. I think there’s a difference between a heated discussion on a specific topic, and mocking or insulting someone. But then after my sarcastic and angry comment on your last post, I suppose I can’t really talk. 🙂
Surely you go out of your way to be offensive. Maybe it’s just the posts I stumble across, but you read like an oddly structured snippet out the Daily Mail. I like your writing style but I rarely find posts I can agree with, and many of them shock and infuriate me. I’ll never be able to get my head around immigrants criticising other immigrants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel for people, Miss Wisp. I also feel too deep an attachment for my (now departing) ways of life. I don’t like the changes I see coming but am powerless to prevent them—I’m reduced to the role of spectator here, and hate it. So I use the final refuge of an impotent witness, which is sarcasm; and if I feel that being offensive might spark a response of some kind, then yes, I am offensive.
In a few minutes I shall be posting a link to a URL-type video, it’s the least I can do: and this now is pure sarcasm, please forgive—
which is of course red-neck propaganda and distortion of facts, misinterpretation to mislead, constructive editing to delude
—so of course you are invited to form your own opinions if you go there and see that.
4GW? Anyone? We don’t know the half of it.
Yet.
And you are right about me being an immigrant. I’ve seen what immigration can do from both sides, what it has done to the Maori way of life (I’ve had Maori friends—still do in fact) and make no apology. That one is a huge can of worms which the PC try desperately to gloss over. But you have to experience it; and right now there is a huge influx of Asian capital buying up kiwi farms, land, properties and business like you wouldn’t believe it—another peaceful invasion?
I resrve the right to mock and/or insult people who simply refuse to open their eyes and see for themselves. Me? No, I’m a genius, a great mind, a wonderful paradigm of intellectual etc etc etc and that was sarcasm too …
If you cannot agree with me—then one of us is wrong, no? Please feel free to point out where I’m wrong. This is not only an open invitation, Miss Wisp, it is a request from an old know-all still humble enough to consider that he may … just … perhaps be a little bit in error.
Naaaaah, never happen …
🙂 ;-0 🙂
… much.
LikeLike